A. L. Davis & Son v. Oldakers

Washington Territory

A. L. Davis & Son v. Oldakers

19 P. 150, 3 Wash. Terr. 593, 1888 Wash. Terr. LEXIS 39

DecidedJuly 14, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 19 P. 150 (A. L. Davis & Son v. Oldakers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Territory primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. L. Davis & Son v. Oldakers, 19 P. 150, 3 Wash. Terr. 593, 1888 Wash. Terr. LEXIS 39 (Wash. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Allyn

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to set aside a sale and deed, and subject certain property to a judgment of plaintiffs, heretofore obtained against A. Oldakers. Defendants answered that the property was really the property of Sabra Oldakers, the wife, although transferred to her by Oldakers at a later date; that appellants secured their claim by a chattel mortgage (the security afterwards being lost), and set up the defense that such security was taken in full satisfaction of the debt originally due appellants. A reply was filed putting in issue the above facts. To this a demurrer was filed by defendants, and sustained by the court below, and the action was dismissed.

It is sufficient to say that certain issues were squarely presented in the complaint, answer, and reply, and the action should not have been dismissed. The action of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded for a trial on the issues thus joined.

Jones, O. J., and Nash, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Allyn

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to set aside a sale and deed, and subject certain property to a judgment of plaintiffs, heretofore obtained against A. Oldakers. Defendants answered that the property was really the property of Sabra Oldakers, the wife, although transferred to her by Oldakers at a later date; that appellants secured their claim by a chattel mortgage (the security afterwards being lost), and set up the defense that such security was taken in full satisfaction of the debt originally due appellants. A reply was filed putting in issue the above facts. To this a demurrer was filed by defendants, and sustained by the court below, and the action was dismissed.

It is sufficient to say that certain issues were squarely presented in the complaint, answer, and reply, and the action should not have been dismissed. The action of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded for a trial on the issues thus joined.

Jones, O. J., and Nash, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 P. 150, 3 Wash. Terr. 593, 1888 Wash. Terr. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-l-davis-son-v-oldakers-washterr-1888.